Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 4/27/2004

Condit v. Dunne

Citations

  • 317 F. Supp. 2d 344
  • 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1289
  • 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7247
  • 2004 WL 895650

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that New York’s interest in regulating the conduct of its media “remains even when the target of the statement lives in another state”
  • taking judicial notice of news articles as evidence of an alleged “media frenzy” that was described in the complaint
  • finding defendant not immune from slander for “literally true” statements where defendant was retelling false and defamatory stories
  • finding that “the policy interests of New York and California in having their respective laws applied essentially offset” because “New York has an interest here in applying its laws to the speaker, and California has an interest here in applying its laws to the target”
  • taking judicial notice of “widespread publicity” and “media frenzy” and citing cases
  • “To determine whether a statement declares or implies a false assertion of fact,” look to “both to the statement itself and to the context in which it was published.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Leisure

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

66 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.